If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Leopard 2 was built as a defensive tank first. Not offensive. It was made to stare the enemy in the eye, to take hits, give them back better than it got and then to get to the next defensive position to do it all over again. And don't use it for Counter Insurgency Combat!

It should be able to give back more than it takes, which it does in theory but an ammo rack like that shouldn't happen unless the crew has been sloppy with procedures and storage of ammo. Knocking it out, yeah. But damn.

Nevertheless counter insurgency or no, upgrading your tank fleet with APS should be the next logical step in evolution for any army these days tbh

Leopard 2 was built as a defensive tank first. Not offensive. It was made to stare the enemy in the eye, to take hits, give them back better than it got and then to get to the next defensive position to do it all over again. And don't use it for Counter Insurgency Combat!

Russians had gun-launched ATGMs similar to the one used in the video since early 80s so not sure how it could take hits any better in that scenario.

Leopard 2 was built as a defensive tank first. Not offensive. It was made to stare the enemy in the eye, to take hits, give them back better than it got and then to get to the next defensive position to do it all over again. And don't use it for Counter Insurgency Combat!

It should be able to give back more than it takes, which it does in theory but an ammo rack like that shouldn't happen unless the crew has been sloppy with procedures and storage of ammo. Knocking it out, yeah. But damn.

Nevertheless counter insurgency or no, upgrading your tank fleet with APS should be the next logical step in evolution for any army these days tbh

APS is not cheap, trophy is 300k per vehicle, add mass up to 650 kg and it has disadvantages of collateral damage. IFV is the new star:

Leopard 2 was built as a defensive tank first. Not offensive. It was made to stare the enemy in the eye, to take hits, give them back better than it got and then to get to the next defensive position to do it all over again. And don't use it for Counter Insurgency Combat!

Russians had gun-launched ATGMs similar to the one used in the video since early 80s so not sure how it could take hits any better in that scenario.

Cold war designs emphasized full frontal action and armored accordingly. Both metis and konkurs were not capable of pen "modern" western tanks (M1,leo2,Challenger) on the front, that's why kornet and metis-m were later developed. Yes, Leopard 2 wasn't made for COIN warfare. Just look at how thick the frontal armor is vs how thin the side armor (specifically at the bustle) is:

But you can adapt the Leopard 2 for COIN warfare by adding more armor:

APS is not cheap, trophy is 300k per vehicle, add mass up to 650 kg and it has disadvantages of collateral damage.

Isn't expensive when you take the base price of the tank unit itself into consideration. For what it does I think it's actually not that expensive. Collateral damage is a problem though, but not that big of an issue as to work around it.

This. The Turkish army is way more professional than any of the Arab armies.

Rather I'd wager that they doctrinal use isn't up to the task at hand.

Before or after they purged about half the officer corps from the army?

I suspect that they are making exactly the same error the Saudis made in Yemen. Resupply over rugged terrain is hard and requires effort to keep the supply columns save. Tanks fill in for artillery/air support so they need to carry a lot of shells, far more than the bustle intended to stop the whole tank blowing up on a hit can hold.

So rather than play it save and have to drive back to resupply constantly, you stack ammo in the turret, get hit, and go up like the 4th of July.